Ron Paul considers Dennis Kucinich for cabinet position

Just found this linked to the Drudge report:

thehill.com...

I love listening to the Neocons go crazy over this statement. As if they had any leaning toward Paul before this comment...Now they are definitely NOT going to support Paul...lol. This movement is so far beyond the left/right paradigm and I think this statement proves it. I'm not a supporter of Kucinich or his liberal views but he's been good on some things (civil liberties). And I agree with the good Doctor that this is about building coalitions and moving the country towards peace and freedom.

reply to post by peponastick


My question is.

Would the Department of Peace be linked to DHS or DoD? It could not be a seperate entity, it would have to have a seat at the table. And eventually Dennis would move on to another post or retire. Who would replace him?

Kinda smacks of 1984, don't it.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

reply to post by peponastick


Good on Ron. While Kucinich ain't perfect he is one of the better politicians.

RP is our best bet. Let's hope he can get this job.

reply to post by TDawgRex


Under a Paul presidency I believe those departments would be abolished along with the Dept of:

Education
Energy
EPA
and other useless departments...

I think we are already living in a worse than 1984 scenario.

It's funny watching a frantically anti-government man not only run for executive office but also talk about adding new departments.

Also hilarious to watch rabid fanboys trip over themselves to show hteir own hatred of government by participating in the system by funding and supporting him.. .well.. .those small handful that are actually old enough to vote (capturing the 14-17 internet male demographic isn't that helpful, after all)

Don't pick out the drapes before you see the windows. And don't fling around cabinet positions when you're coming in tied for last in a losing party's campaign.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
It's funny watching a frantically anti-government man not only run for executive office but also talk about adding new departments.

Also hilarious to watch rabid fanboys trip over themselves to show hteir own hatred of government by participating in the system by funding and supporting him.. .well.. .those small handful that are actually old enough to vote (capturing the 14-17 internet male demographic isn't that helpful, after all)

Don't pick out the drapes before you see the windows. And don't fling around cabinet positions when you're coming in tied for last in a losing party's campaign.

What ever happened to the liberal anti-war movement? Oh yeah.. never mind.

reply to post by peponastick


I really don't think he would get rid of the DoD.

Hell, he could even make it bigger by getting rid of all the generals and higher echelon employees and using those monies saved to pay the Joes who would be defending us. Ya know, the guys and gals who actually put their lives on the line. Not driving a desk.

There was a point during OIF when there were more generals in Baghdad than there were US Generals during WW2.

I'll take a bright Colonel over a political general any day.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


I'm sorry Obama didn't work out and he managed to wake up the American people to what has been happening in this country for the last 100 years. I think this is why Obama looks so sick every time I see him...he has set the globalist back a century...

We will have our prosperity,peace,bill of rights and sound money.
Ron Paul 2012.

reply to post by rwfresh


I'm not going to trade an end to the war for domestic policies aimed at turning the United States into a continent-sized version of Oaxaca. Sorry. You want to live that dream, # off to somalia.

I wouldn’t have said this 10 years ago when I would have chalked Kid Kucinich up to a garden variety screwball, but the man has revealed himself to be an absolute weasel.

reply to post by SirMike


I'm no fan either but I think the point is this campaign is about breaking peoples conditioning to the left/right paradigmn and bringing together a coalition that can affect change (End the wars/End the Fed). And besides Paul said he would CONSIDER it...I don't think in the end that it would come to fruition. But I still like the sound of a department of peace....I'm so sick and tired of people being killed in our name.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by rwfresh

 

I'm not going to trade an end to the war for domestic policies aimed at turning the United States into a continent-sized version of Oaxaca. Sorry. You want to live that dream, # off to somalia.

You talk like you've got a say. You like war? Pick one and off you go. Your dear leader of peace has lots of opportunities for tough guys like yourself.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by rwfresh

 

I'm not going to trade an end to the war for domestic policies aimed at turning the United States into a continent-sized version of Oaxaca. Sorry. You want to live that dream, # off to somalia.

To me, anything would be worth not doing the sinful atrocities we currently commit around the world in the name of "freedom". I have no illusions and don't blame our president for them but I do get upset with him every day that passes and he doesn't bring them home. If he did, I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat. But since he's not, I'm voting for the only guy that will. To hell with the consequences..

reply to post by Cuervo


I read yours and the previous posters' replies, and I just have to shake my head. It's like you really, truly think it's as simple as saying "Okay, we're gong home, how." It's not. it really, truly, is not. It's very easy to start a war... it's a very different thing to get yourself out of one. Think back when you were a teenager... How easy was it to pick a fight with another guy your age? Probably pretty easy... was it easy to back out of what your mouth just got your ass into? No.

I don't support the wars at all - and unlike the majority of the people now honking their crotches over Ron Paul, I never did. The reality is that we are in there, we can't just roll up and go home overnight, and even if we could, the people currently holding the purse strings have absolutely no interest in funding such an endeavor since, as you both clearly make the case, the longer we're there the worse it is for the president's political chances.

Of course, neither of you have noted that the president is actually making the effort to get us out; we're withdrawing from iraq, and are in negotiations to get out of Afghanistan without leaving too huge a mess... Of course in the politics of instant gratification, this sort of thing doesn't even buzz your radar; you want it now, immediately, piping hot and no commercial interruptions. if it takes more than a day you can't be bothered to look at it.

Now, all this being the case... the plain fact is that Ron Paul will be no more successful in ending these wars than the current guy is. I know, a lot of you think the president is some sort of wizard, able to wave his wand and just make stuff happen... he's not. he can't. In fact with a Republican in office, if the same party holds Congress, odds are the wars will be expanded, if only indirectly by budgeting more money for "defense" (He can veto all he wants, congress still has final say)

What Paul - and again, we assume, his Republican buddies in Congress - can accomplish, however, is a complete destruction of the notion of "we the people," in favor of "rule by wealth." Oligarchy is already a major corruption in our system, and all Paul and his "libertarian" policies would do is rubber-stamp a return to the days when personal wealth was determined by how fast you could whip a man in the fields.Thus my comparison to Oaxaca, where there is no middle class; only the ultra-wealthy and the very poor who live as serfs for them.

I pity Americans. At least the Titanic sunk because of an accident; Americans are so sure of their own indestructibility that they're willing to ram the iceberg at full steam.

personally, i want to know who these candidates will surround themselves with BEFORE they do it.

i don't care how good they sound by themselves.


if i vote for you, who/what the hell else am i voting for?


i want to see the roster.

no more "pass it to see it"

that includes my own picks.

analogy;

if i want to start a restaurant with investors money, i need a game plan/concept that will fly with them.

i also need to present some organisational map of who is who. it will show the investors/voters where i am going and what talent i will bring to the table.

"vote for me and i'll set you free" hopefully won't work anymore.

neither will they give me the money, trust me, if i don't bring more.

if these candidates don't have a clue who is on board with them, or will serve if asked, then i have not a lot of confidence in them.

it might change the dynamics of the voting system, maybe for the better, if we know what we will get.

did anyone of you actually read the whole article? op included,

"Ron works with Dennis on some coalition issues, and respects him as a thinker, but was joking and would not consider him for Cabinet position. He made clear he did not want to name Cabinet officials," Benton said.

i think the title of this thread is misleading from truth, it was a joke, every post thus far in this thread including the op is acting as if it was not a joke, usually threads like that get put in the hoax bin, doubt it'll happen here though, cause its about ostracizing paul from a few more voters

Yeah, this should be tossed in the hoax bin.

On another note, Kucinich's wife is pretty damn hot

reply to post by fooks



GOP candidates do not show their cards until the nominee is chosen.

I'd like to see their choices for cabinet too but I do believe politicians do not want to be associated or 'endorsing' anybody if the particular candidate did not win.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Cuervo

 

I read yours and the previous posters' replies, and I just have to shake my head. It's like you really, truly think it's as simple as saying "Okay, we're gong home, how." It's not. it really, truly, is not. It's very easy to start a war... it's a very different thing to get yourself out of one. Think back when you were a teenager... How easy was it to pick a fight with another guy your age? Probably pretty easy... was it easy to back out of what your mouth just got your ass into? No.

It's easy to back out of a fight when you are the 7' tall bully and your victims are starving children. Even if it is more complicated, it's still the right thing to do and sometimes the right thing is worth doing even if it's difficult.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
I don't support the wars at all - and unlike the majority of the people now honking their crotches over Ron Paul, I never did. The reality is that we are in there, we can't just roll up and go home overnight, and even if we could, the people currently holding the purse strings have absolutely no interest in funding such an endeavor since, as you both clearly make the case, the longer we're there the worse it is for the president's political chances.

So because the war profiteers are "holding the purse strings", we should allow the corruption? You just said what is wrong with the situation and then said that's why we shouldn't change it. To me, you just outlined a major reason why we need to shut down all foreign military operations immediately. War is a commodity and will be as long as we are a warrior nation.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Of course, neither of you have noted that the president is actually making the effort to get us out; we're withdrawing from iraq, and are in negotiations to get out of Afghanistan without leaving too huge a mess... Of course in the politics of instant gratification, this sort of thing doesn't even buzz your radar; you want it now, immediately, piping hot and no commercial interruptions. if it takes more than a day you can't be bothered to look at it.

Thanks for assuming I have a short attention span. I am well aware of our president's efforts. They are not enough. Just like his health care policy. It wasn't enough. He gave up. Stopped pushing. He is trying to make everybody happy and we all know that is impossible. He can stop it tomorrow if he truly wanted to.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Now, all this being the case... the plain fact is that Ron Paul will be no more successful in ending these wars than the current guy is. I know, a lot of you think the president is some sort of wizard, able to wave his wand and just make stuff happen... he's not. he can't. In fact with a Republican in office, if the same party holds Congress, odds are the wars will be expanded, if only indirectly by budgeting more money for "defense" (He can veto all he wants, congress still has final say)

I think you need to research what the Commander in Chief can actually do. He/she actually decides where we have troops stationed around the world. This person is also the first and last authority on all US military actions. To say a president's hands are tied in regards to stopping a war is simply not true. The president does, indeed, have a magic wand in regards to our military.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
What Paul - and again, we assume, his Republican buddies in Congress - can accomplish, however, is a complete destruction of the notion of "we the people," in favor of "rule by wealth." Oligarchy is already a major corruption in our system, and all Paul and his "libertarian" policies would do is rubber-stamp a return to the days when personal wealth was determined by how fast you could whip a man in the fields.Thus my comparison to Oaxaca, where there is no middle class; only the ultra-wealthy and the very poor who live as serfs for them.

First of all, you have it backwards. He can accomplish his foreign policy vision with absolutely zero cooperation from any other person in Washington. The rest of his goals are even more controversial than President Obama's healthcare protection act and we all know how that turned out. I honestly don't think he'll be able to do much of anything outside of bringing the troops home.

And let's pretend he does destroy our middle class, economy, and turns us into an even more extreme oligarchy. It would still be worth it to me. I would rather live in a 3rd world nation that does not commit violence on a global and daily scale than to live in a nation that profits from the deaths and subjigation of other 3rd world nations.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
It's funny watching a frantically anti-government man not only run for executive office but also talk about adding new departments.

Also hilarious to watch rabid fanboys trip over themselves to show hteir own hatred of government by participating in the system by funding and supporting him.. .well.. .those small handful that are actually old enough to vote (capturing the 14-17 internet male demographic isn't that helpful, after all)

Don't pick out the drapes before you see the windows. And don't fling around cabinet positions when you're coming in tied for last in a losing party's campaign.

I believe that you, like many others against freedom, are confusing anti-government for anti-corruption..

RP is not anti-government, he is against corruption..

What I think is hilarious, is how the MSM and the status quo use that term "anti-government" as a convenient label for anyone who stands up to them..

Many of us here at ATS would have hoped that you would already know these things and would join in on the firm stance against corruption and deceit that is ripping apart our nation, but alas,sometimes people get caught up in the furor and power that your mainstream heroes exert over you, or perhaps you just can't see past the trap of extreme falsehoods you are following?